Patriarch of Constantinople:Homily, Creed, and Blessing together with the Pope

Holy Mass of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles, presided by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, with the participation of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I

On Sunday, June 29, 2008, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles, the Holy Father Benedict XVI will celebrate the Eucharist, at 9:30, in the Vatican Basilica, with the participation of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.

The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Father will deliver the Homily, jointly recite the profession of faith [Creed], and impart the blessing.

The new Metropolitan Archbishops, on whom the Pontiff will impose the holy Pallium taken from the Confessio of the Apostle Peter, will concelebrate with the Holy Father.

What Creed will be used? Without the Filioque - as in Dominus Iesus, 1?

This is not the first time that this will be done. Pope John Paul II had also blessed the people together with Patriarchs Demetrios and Bartholomew in previous June 29visits by the aforementioned Ecumenical Patriarchs to Rome. And, as far as I know, the Filioque has been omitted several times since 1981 (during the celebrations of the anniversary of Constantinople I at St. Peter's Basilica and during the visits of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs).

What is everyone upset for? The Greek Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch Bartolomeus represent real Churches....just like the Catholic Church.

Just be happy that Benedict XVI isn't having a pack of Lutheran or Episcopalian/Anglican so called "bishops" up on the altar of St. Peter's for this ceremony...like John Paul II did in the mid 1990's to celebrate the anniversary of St. Brigid. Lutheran men who were as much a bishop as my dog standing up on the altar with John Paul II and giving "blessings".NOW THAT WAS DISGUSTING.

If Patriarch Bartolomeus participates, this is great.But let's pray and hope that no Protestants participate in anything.....especially during the soon to be opened "Pauline Year".

I live in the Old Brooklyn/Parma area of Ohio which is one of the few areas of the US with a large Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox population (Parma is the seat of TWO eparchies!). So I am quite familiar with the Eastern Churches, attending Divine Liturgy rather than the Roman Mass at least every other month.

Would a Greek Catholic please correct me if I am wrong, but the Eastern Churches are in no way obliged to confess the filioque but merely accept it as orthodox, a reflection of Latin trinitarian theology.

The issue isn't whether or not the Creed used is the "original" or the one used by Western Rite Catholics; it's the intent behind the selection - not wanting to offend the Orthodox Patriarch.

Just a side note:

Nearly twenty years ago I was attending an independent chapel that used exclusively the traditional Mass. A local Orthodox clergyman visited a few times and was quite pleasant. He even asked if he could "sit in the pew" at our Midnight Mass on Christmas. No problem. During the Credo he and his party got up and walked out when the Filioque was sung by the choir. So much for ecumenism! Guess they thought they would get the same shameful "respect" dished out at the Vatican.

Whether or not the Greek Patriarch would be so ill mannered, I do not know. But I think it is safe to assume that a vast majority of the Orthodox abhor the Filioque.

I remember being taught when just a boy that we should never be ashamed of our Catholic faith. Say your Grace before Meals in public... Catholics should not be ashamed of pronouncing the Filioque in front of schismatics. Remember, we are not doubters of this article of faith, but rather they! They should feel uncomfortable in their obstinacy!!

I think I'm correct in saying that Rome held out against adding the Filioque clause literaly for centuries. It was first added to the Credo in Spain without Rome's premission as an attempt to combat Arianism and eventually came to be used in the Frankish Kingdom at the time of Charlemange. It was presure from the Franks at a moment when the Papacy was deperate for their support which led to Rome, with some regret, adding the clause.

Why should this surprise anyone? It's no different than every other scandal that has come out of the Vatican since 1962...and they want SSPX to come back? Hah...what a belly laugh. No...Your Excellency, don't do it...please!

"The issue isn't whether or not the Creed used is the "original" or the one used by Western Rite Catholics; it's the intent behind the selection - not wanting to offend the Orthodox Patriarch."

Exactly.

Allow me to expand the matter.

We know that, almost two years ago, the Holy Father issued an order, through his Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (with authority over the New Roman Rite), for the correct translation of the formula "pro multis" in the Consecration of the Wine. The decision was to be implemented "in the next one or two years".

The Pope is a man shocked with disorder in Sacred Liturgy, and rightly so. That is why, despite his own order for the correct translation of "pro multis", he has not modified, "sua sponte", the translations he may have eventually used in the intervening months: for instance, he has continued to use "per tutti" in Masses celebrated in Italian in his own Diocese, because that is what is written in the books. The same took place in his visits to Brazil ("por todos") or to America ("for all").

Now, does the New Roman Missal (and the specific rubrics for celebrations of the New Mass with the Supreme Pontiff) allow for the recitation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the "Filioque"? If so, then, that is quite understandable. The Creed without the Filioque is not as complete, but never wrong.

But if the omission is not foreseen in the liturgical books themselves and is custom-made according to the guest who happens to be present, then the situation is quite confusing: why is such "ad hoc" change acceptable, while the use of what is at best a problematic expression ("for all") is allowed to remain in place when the Pope himself has ordered its replacement and is well aware of his own order for its change?

You could have predicted it. The SSPX would be given an ultimatum, and at the same time the Vatican would arrange something that had a good chance of derailing the negotiations with the SSPX. Why is the patriarch going to be giving a homily or a blessing? How does this contribute to the granting of the pallia to Latin metropolitans? If it signifies unity, where is the unity? Shouldn't this go in the opposite order -- reestablish unity between Rome and Constantinople, then invite the patriarch for a homily and blessing? Even if the East and West were reunited, I don't think the patriarch of Constantinople would show up in Rome every year for Sts. Peter and Paul (and yes, I know, he's returning the favor Pope Benedict showed several years ago on St. Andrew's Day in Constantinople).

I don't know what good the patriarch's visit will do. It may provide perfect cover for the SSPX to refuse the agreement, however. At the very least, there will be scandal. All in the same week. Does no one in the Vatican consider these things? Or is the problem that they *do* consider them? ~Tobias

This could be a serious scandal if the EP participates in the recitation of the creed of the Council of Lyons instead of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.It is one thing to support peaceful coexistence and tolerance. It is altogether a different matter to recite a heterodox creed at a heterodox religious service. Why all this kowtowing to Rome? They have gone their own way. Leave them in peace I say. The fruits of Rome's departure is evident in the history of Western Christianity over the last thousand years.

I guess you are more cozy with no head of the Church to invoke an Ecumenical Council since 1054, and with your so-called Orthodox impaired churches approving divorce, remarriage, union with the Anglican communion, acceptance under "economy" of invalid Anglican pastors, and the toleration of unnatural anti-conception medicins. Further the history of involvement with State-fraud imperialism and the Soviets is all well documented for the so-called Orthodox churches from Bulgaria until inside the Duchy of Moscow.

And we could see how firmly God blessed the so-called Orthodox when He allowed the pagan Turks to sack the Sacred Hagia Sophia Cathedral as the schismatic populace refused to agree to the Union of Florence, which was perfectly Orthodox-Catholic.

The Catholic ("Latin") Church is indefectibile.

I will quote a true Saint of Catholic orthodoxy, Saint Maximos of Constantinople the Confessor, to refute your impious rants against the Catholic Roman Church.

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? ... And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Constantinople is second, and per Divine ordinance subordinate, to the Western Patriarch, the Pope of Rome. Full autonomy can be granted to a re-united Constantinople Patriarchate, but not denial of divinely revealed and instituted Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope of Rome.

[ Writing to Pope Leo III ]Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore the Studite, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Those so-called Orthodox who attack the Roman Holy See, attack the Apostolic authority of Saint Peter, and thus the Church of Jesus Christ. This is true schism.

Yet the SSPX "excommunications" are not revoked! Constantinople stands there without excommunication stain, while they indeed still actively deny dogmata and refuse to accept communion with the holy Church of Christ, of Saint Peter.

But if the omission is not foreseen in the liturgical books themselves and is custom-made according to the guest who happens to be present, then the situation is quite confusing: why is such "ad hoc" change acceptable, while the use of what is at best a problematic expression ("for all") is allowed to remain in place when the Pope himself has ordered its replacement and is well aware of his own order for its change?

You bring up a good point about apparent inconsistency and the confusion that results from it (something Catholics have often experienced from the Holy See through the ages). I’m not aware that a provision exists in the liturgical books for the occasional omission of the Filioque --- apart from the Roman Pontiff’s general authority to regulate the liturgy of his church, that is. I note that the matter of the “for all” mistranslation is open-ended in its time-table for implementation. My guess is that it is meant to be implemented at the same time that the first-ever English translation of the new Roman Missal is finally approved. If I recall correctly, Liturgiam Authenticam has called for implementation of new translation to be done all at once, not incrementally. Inclusion or omission of the Filioque is not a translation question, of course, but touches on questions of rite, doctrine, and theology.

Those so-called Orthodox who attack the Roman Holy See, attack the Apostolic authority of Saint Peter, and thus the Church of Jesus Christ. This is true schism.

Yet the SSPX "excommunications" are not revoked!

If the SSPX desires the Holy See to show them generosity and tolerance as we strive to end the SSPX's irregular situation, there can be no objection to the Holy See showing generosity and tolerance as we strive to end the Eastern Schism. If we want Rome to crack the whip at the Orthodox, then we should ask Rome to crack the whip at everybody, within and without.

if the SSPX wishes to start their own church, be persecuted, be oppressed, pass through the necessary thousands of years that legitimate churches have already passed through.then, re submit a well thought out comment.

"So the SSPX schism is better than the Orthodox schism? Seems like the reverse should be true since the SSPX sees Vatican 1 as authoritative while the Orthodox do not."

You can dice that both ways. Either the SSPX are worse on the pastoral level for not living up to Vatican I (as you claim, not I) while professing to accept it, or the Orthodox are worse on the doctrinal level for not recognizing it in the first place. ~Tobias

So the SSPX schism (sic) is better than the Orthodox schism? Seems like the reverse should be true since the SSPX sees Vatican 1 as authoritative while the Orthodox do not.

I don’t think the one situation is necessarily any better or more desirable than the other. Rather, I observe that the Holy See has adopted an attitude of charity, patience, generosity, and solicitude both with the Orthodox and with the SSPX, and whether or not that attitude is always prudent, it is nevertheless understandable why the Vatican takes that approach and what they hope will be the eventual result. I confess if it were up to me, knowing my predispositions and temperament, I’d be apt to fulminate anathemas and excommunications in all directions. This is one of the most important reasons why I will never be elected Pope.

any comment made by the SSPX regarding anything should be considered heresy.Oh it's true.

What a stupid thing to say. If we take that dictim to its logical conclusions, we have to conclude that Catholicism is itself heresy.

"You can dice that both ways. Either the SSPX are worse on the pastoral level for not living up to Vatican I (as you claim, not I) while professing to accept it, or the Orthodox are worse on the doctrinal level for not recognizing it in the first place. ~Tobias"

Yes, but I wouldn't expect the Orthodox to accept a council as ecuemnical that they weren't involved. - Bob

Stanislawów,First I would suggest taking a deep breath before typing in anger. Failure to do so can result in making statements which are not only false but false as a matter of common knowledge.

You wrote in part..."guess you are more cozy with no head of the Church to invoke an Ecumenical Council since 1054, and with your so-called Orthodox impaired churches approving divorce, remarriage, union with the Anglican communion, acceptance under "economy" of invalid Anglican pastors, and the toleration of unnatural anti-conception medicins. Further the history of involvement with State-fraud imperialism and the Soviets is all well documented for the so-called Orthodox churches from Bulgaria until inside the Duchy of Moscow.

We have found the nine ecumenical councils to be sufficient since subsequent to Rome's departure there has been relatively little internal theological dispute that seriously touches on The Faith. With respect to divorce and remarriage, neither are approved in Orthodoxy. However, we do out of an abundance of mercy and through economia in keeping with the patristic discipline of the Eastern Church tolerate second marriages. These are not occasions of joy however and the service is penitential reflecting the failure of the parties involved. This too was once the practice of the Western Church. I refer you to the canons of the councils of Arles and Elvira, both Western Church councils. In general I find this a more honest practice than handing our "annulments" like candy which is the Western Church's way of getting around your own rigorist discipline.

With respect to "union" with Anglicans this is utter nonsense and patently false. The Anglicans are heretics and the so called branch theory has been formally anathematized. Their orders and sacraments are not accepted and the only economy extended to them that I am aware of is that some Orthodox jurisdictions permit reception of Anglican converts by Holy Chrismation without Baptism. This is a practice I personally disagree with but I defer to the authority of the bishop to make such decisions.

With respect to contraception Orthodoxy does not hold that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. However the Orthodox Church does hold that procreation is an important part of marriage and thus contraception may not be used to avoid the responsibilities of a family. Persons who do not desire to have children may not marry in the Orthodox Church. The use of contraception is permitted only in cases where there is a legitimate need (health reasons etc.) and must normally be approved by one's confessor. Abortificient forms of BC are NOT permitted ever.

In terms of excessive involvement in the affairs of this world and particularly politics I think the cautionary expression about people living in glass houses might apply. That said you are of course correct that there was collaboration on the part of some clergy in the Soviet period. This is true and well documented in the Roman Catholic Church as well. However, I would point out that Russia has been drenched in the blood of the martyrs during this period. Their exact numbers will likely never be known but it is certainly in the millions. It is worth observing that every single Orthodox bishop at the time of the abdication of the Holy Royal Passion Bearer Nicholas II was either killed or died in prison, often under torture.

I am not going to go into a detailed discussion of the differences between the Latin Church and Orthodoxy on all of the various theological points. This is not the appropriate forum for that. And of course com box discussions simply are inadequate to properly cover the important issues. I will suffice to note that the claims of the Pope of Rome are alien to the Church of the first millennium and certainly are without historical foundation. How many Patriarchs of Constantinople were appointed by the Pope of Rome? We can both quote long passages from the saints. However the ecclesiology of the Undivided Church simply does not support Rome's interpretations.

I find it odd that you post attacks on Orthodoxy on a website dedicated to combating modernism. It is Rome which picks and chooses which canons to observe at whim. It is Rome which invents doctrine after doctrine over a thousand years, usually self serving in nature. What most Romans don't seem to grasp is that Rome is and has been for over a thousand years the mother of modernism.